The Black isn't the hero, the Black is the one who runs, tries to betray and murder a fellow solider, then is eaten alive by wolves.

In the end the Afghan Paki Roman solider cuts the African Black Roman solider's Achille's tendon and leaves him for the wolves. Then at the very end the Afghan-Paki pulls a sword on the White Germanic Fassbender hero, and Fassbender kills him in extended hand-to-hand combat. Pure multi-cult gone bad and the White wins out.

Then the heroic Germanic Roman solider Fassbender is betrayed by the Roman politican and he deserts the Roman multicultural empire to be with his own kind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic Welsh Warrior

It is great seeing Picts destroy the Multiracial Roman Empire.

No wonder Hollywood refused to distribute this film to movie screens.

Since you conveniently ignored my last post (again), I'm just going to go ahead and re-post it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transilvanian

I just watched Centurion. You openly lied about the plot!!!You even manage to lie about the plot of the film in order to bend it to your own propaganda about non-Whites in the Roman Empire and how you erroneously and anachronistically think that its fall (which occurred CENTURIES after the movie's setting, 117 AD) somehow began during the actual HEIGHT OF ROMAN POWER.

The Negro, yes, at one point proposed to kill a soldier who was slowing them down, but his proposals were rejected by everyone else and he DID NOTHING OF THE SORT. However, he was betrayed to the wolves by Thax, a WHITE ROMAN played by a WHITE AMERICAN/BRITISH actor!!!!

The only Pakistani in the movie was Tarak, who was indeed played by a guy called Riz Ahmed, and he was killed by the Picts in combat. By the way, he never acted aggressively against anyone in the movie, White or otherwise.

I repeat, Thax was a White man with a British accent played by a White actor. He was the main villain of the movie and was as White as you can get. This is JJ Field, the man playing who you dishonestly call the "Pakistani murderer":

Read the plot and get your facts straight before you deform even a MOVIE's plot for your own propaganda needs! This movie is in NO WAY anti-multiracial, anti-multicultural, or even anti-Roman. The Romans were the heroes throughout, and only at the end does the movie take a bash at the British Roman authorities' attempt to whitewash the whole thing by eliminating the main protagonist; that is in no way an attack on Roman civilization or your sad ideas about Rome being "multi-racial".

Centurion's casting of a Negro and a Pakistani (who, LOL, claims to be Assyrian but says he was born in the Hindu Kush, 5000 km away from Assyria) fits RIGHT into the West's multicultural propaganda. Your attempts to portray this movie as pro-White are extremely feeble and unrealistic.

By the way, the Roman heroes kill their Pict pursuers at the end. All of them. I don't see how that's "The Picts Winning". Both the Pict leadership and the Roman leadership are portrayed as being flawed and repressive.

What a load horsesh!t.. This film is about the supposition that the Picts destroyed the so called lost ninth legion.. There is is not one iota of evidence, ZERO physical remains of cataclysmic battle site where the legion met a bloody slaughter. .

Does anyone believe that the Romans were so stupid so as to build enclosed forts that their enemies could simply climb over from the back of a horse, let alone spear someone from the ground?
The Romans employed tactics that would have side stepped oil soaked burning global branches, (like the Trojans used in 1100 BCE) and then close ranks after they had passed.The Romans had side stepped elephants and burning oil soaked logs before.They would have had superior armor, (which even Hannibal stripped from the dead of the first Roman army he defeated in Italy to put his own men in,)The film The Romans armor was not protection against the crude weapons of the Celtic Picts. They might as well not have been wearing any armor. Then the Romans didn't have flankers out to check on and forestall surprise attack as they always did on a march. Roman soldiers and even a general didn't know enough about old iron to shatter it, instead of only bend it. Noise didn't matter because they were already discovered. This film stymies the imagination.
The producers have the Romans only thrust with their swords, not slashed with them as the general portrays. How could an uneducated in war farmer, develop or have superior tactics to a Roman general, who had been a professional soldier all of his life. And utterly incredible the Romans were carrying wooden spears instead of two Pila each.Romans would only order the silence of one of their centurions, not try to murder him as portrayed in the movie, murdering him would only have made ten more people know about the ninth legion being destroyed by the Picts, and then you have to kill the ten, and so on, but the writer - director had to make the disappearance mysterious, as in history.
The writer - director does not have an inkling of the first damned thing about something called war, he had to get rid of the IX Legion Espana, started by Pompey the Great, and led by Caesar, in some way, so making them turn stupid was just as good as any other, I guess.

No, in the beginning the Roman Empire was monoethnic.
It was only later in the decline of the Roman Empire that they began to import non-whites and barbarians as mercenaries into their armies.

There are much similarities and parallels between the Roman Empire and the Brirtish Empire and America.....all three were very powerful and majestic until they were flooded with brown masses, then the quality and intelligence of these nations started to decline.

Anytime you see someone only being hunted and slaughtered non-stop in a film you will instinctively root for the victims

Ok, so you are on the side of the Native American then ? The Indian of the Americas ?

If so, America never could of existed then...

The Roman empire lasted for several hundred years.

Uhh.....a little longer than that.

27 BC - 476 AD

Empire building comes at a price

Actually, if an Empire stuck to a few simple rules....it could last forever.

However, immigration and decadence always destroys...

The Justinian Empire lasted for over a thousand years....simply because they refused Jews positions of power.

What a load horsesh!t.. This film is about the supposition that the Picts destroyed the so called lost ninth legion.. There is is not one iota of evidence, ZERO physical remains of cataclysmic battle site where the legion met a bloody slaughter. .

Does anyone believe that the Romans were so stupid so as to build enclosed forts that their enemies could simply climb over from the back of a horse, let alone spear someone from the ground?
The Romans employed tactics that would have side stepped oil soaked burning global branches, (like the Trojans used in 1100 BCE) and then close ranks after they had passed.The Romans had side stepped elephants and burning oil soaked logs before.They would have had superior armor, (which even Hannibal stripped from the dead of the first Roman army he defeated in Italy to put his own men in,)The film The Romans armor was not protection against the crude weapons of the Celtic Picts. They might as well not have been wearing any armor. Then the Romans didn't have flankers out to check on and forestall surprise attack as they always did on a march. Roman soldiers and even a general didn't know enough about old iron to shatter it, instead of only bend it. Noise didn't matter because they were already discovered. This film stymies the imagination.
The producers have the Romans only thrust with their swords, not slashed with them as the general portrays. How could an uneducated in war farmer, develop or have superior tactics to a Roman general, who had been a professional soldier all of his life. And utterly incredible the Romans were carrying wooden spears instead of two Pila each.Romans would only order the silence of one of their centurions, not try to murder him as portrayed in the movie, murdering him would only have made ten more people know about the ninth legion being destroyed by the Picts, and then you have to kill the ten, and so on, but the writer - director had to make the disappearance mysterious, as in history.
The writer - director does not have an inkling of the first damned thing about something called war, he had to get rid of the IX Legion Espana, started by Pompey the Great, and led by Caesar, in some way, so making them turn stupid was just as good as any other, I guess.

This film is not only inaccurate, it spits in the face of history. This may be why many on this site like it. When 300 first came out many people genuinely thought it was historically accurate. Down to every last thing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I never thought for one second that it was a historical recanting of the Battle of Thermopylae.

I agree with some of what people in this thread are saying. The fact that Rome let the Northern and Central Europeans become Roman citizens, (which essentially meant that instead of being tortured to death for a crime instead of being killed humanely), wasn't necessarily a good thing. Many Celtic and Germanic people eased there way into the Roman Empire and it was less stable as a society for it.

But the idea that the Phoenician cities that Rome went to war with repeatedly, like Carthage, and latter became controlled by Rome, were Black, and so millions of Blacks came into Rome, took possessions of authority and power, and that's why Rome fell. This is so inaccurate it doesn't even make sense. It also ignores the real reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, which is especially frustrating.

This film is not only inaccurate, it spits in the face of history. This may be why many on this site like it. When 300 first came out many people genuinely thought it was historically accurate. Down to every last thing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I never thought for one second that it was a historical recanting of the Battle of Thermopylae.

I agree with some of what people in this thread are saying. The fact that Rome let the Northern and Central Europeans become Roman citizens, (which essentially meant that instead of being tortured to death for a crime instead of being killed humanely), wasn't necessarily a good thing. Many Celtic and Germanic people eased there way into the Roman Empire and it was less stable as a society for it.

But the idea that the Phoenician cities that Rome went to war with repeatedly, like Carthage, and latter became controlled by Rome, were Black, and so millions of Blacks came into Rome, took possessions of authority and power, and that's why Rome fell. This is so inaccurate it doesn't even make sense. It also ignores the real reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, which is especially frustrating.

Many here have this skewered view of history which is only based on their own current outlook on the Western World. They see mass non-White immigration and Negroes and Jews being problematic, and without any real evidence go on to claim that the predicament which is causing the decline of the West MUST ALSO HAVE BEEN what caused the Roman Empire's defeat.

Such blatant anachronism and disregard for basic historical facts is troubling and frankly makes us all look like a bunch of bumbling retards. The simple fact of the matter is that the Western Roman Empire fell because it got REPLACED by WHITE Germanic kingdoms from within, not because Negroes were magically ruining the Empire. No; there were no Negroes in the Western Empire. It was close to 100% White. If mixing killed the Western Roman Empire, it was mixing with Germanic Whites, so the claimants of this idea fail utterly in their attempts to prove how interracial mixing doesn't work. It was all INTRA-RACIAL in the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman Empire, which included Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Syria, that was a lot less White (but still 95%+ CAUCASOID), but even there Negroes were frankly nonexistent except in southern Egypt. And yet the Eastern Roman Empire lasted 1000 years more (though it's true that by 750 AD it had lost all African and Middle Eastern positions south of Eastern Anatolia (East Turkey today); a few century-long reconquests of Syria and even Phoenicia (today's Lebanon) did little to amend the fact that the Byzantine Empire was essentially Greek and Greco-Slavic during the whole of the Middle Ages. Their excluding Jews from positions of power was indeed a great advantage in the long run.

By definition, empires can hardly be mono-ethnic as each region, and most often each country, has its own unique ethnic makeup. Therefore they are by nature destructive as they in the long run ethnically damage both the conquerors and the conquered.

In the end, only relative isolation, protectionism, strength and a modest life could protect a people. Excessive greed, expansionism and a desire to take other people's territorial space is not a good recipe for continued ethnic homogeneity and racial purity. Whether you want it or not there will be mixing of peoples.

There is no example of a white past empire where the native, conquering population remained the same and just as ethnically homogeneous as before. They all turned multi-ethnic. Yes, modern Jewish-led mass immigration is the main cause of the catastrophic situation we see today, but the cooperation and contacts were set way before, during the empire period.

It is no coincidence that we see so many North Africans and blacks in France, so many Indians and blacks in England and so many Finns in Sweden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fangs of Fenris

Anytime you see someone only being hunted and slaughtered non-stop in a film you will instinctively root for the victims

Ok, so you are on the side of the Native American then ? The Indian of the Americas ?

If so, America never could of existed then...

Will you quit trolling? Of course I am not. When you make a film such as this, where basically the entire film is about hunting down and slaughtering a few vulnerable men, I think it is a must to FIRST give a full and honest portrait of the people doing the hunting and killing. Otherwise we get a very unfair and unbalanced image. I think they deliberately chose not to do that.

We see nothing that makes us feel for the Picts. They seem like killing machines. There is no real attempt to make them human, or to explain their anger and relentless pursuit of a handful men. Yes, we are told about the female warrior's suffering at one point as they show her cold, enraged face, but there is no attempt to really make us come close to these people emotionally.

The Picts, unfairly, are seen as the only aggressors in the film.

The filmmakers deliberately made them cold, hard and robotic, devoid of human feelings, and I don't like that since I feel they are manipulating me into rooting for the Romans against my will.

The Romans are - in stark contrast to the Picts - given a much more human portrait and real identities. We are meant to root for them as they seem more human than the others.

I also feel they injected feminism in the film as the female warrior roles were downright ridiculous. So the British needed women in order to fight the Romans? One of them is shown as almost supernatural and almost superior to the men. She is constantly at the forefront.

I don't like the film because it makes the Romans seem like innocent victims and human, unlike the Picts, when the British were actually the ones who were attacked, victimized and invaded by brutal and often cruel Romans, who just felt entitled to take what they could.

All in all it was a film that failed to get you emotionally involved, and in that it failed the Picts. If you want extreme, non-stop killing and violence in close up this is the film for you.

I liked the film a lot. The fights and action were good, the scenery and cinematography was great, it told a "small squad action" story well (in my opinion), had some humor and even threw in a bit of romance with a pretty girl.

I don't really give a damn if it was historically accurate, or it had female warriors who were brutal and almost superpowered fighters, or if it was told from the Roman side and made the Picts out as cold and heartless killers. I was glad to see the nig got his dues.....

Yes the Roman Empire was brutal - probably hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in the arena just for the entertainment of the general populace. The Romans could not conquer the Scots and Picts, so I would think that brutality reigned supreme on both sides.

You could say the same for almost every conflict ever fought. Look at Northern Ireland and the British - I have relatives from both sides in that. One grandfather came from a staunch Northern Catholic family (IRA supporters) and the other from a British/Scottish Protestant family (my great Grandfather fought in the Boer war in the British Army - another really brutal conflict). So which side should I support - Irish or British? I know the British side of the family would be horrified if I said I supported the IRA.

Anyway I watched the movie to be entertained and I was. If I wanted to be educated I would read a freaking book. It's definitely not a chick flick...........

Yes, it was......in the beginning.
The Roman legions were mostly comprised of men from Italy.

As the Empire began to decline, the quality and discipline of the Roman army began to deteriorate. As more foreign mercenaries began to pour into the Roman ranks, the army looked more like a hodge podge mixture of different cultures made up of men wearing different types of armor.

Will you quit trolling?

Ok, I'm a Sustaining Member on Stormfront....but yet I'm a troll. I guess anybody who has a different opinion from yours is a "troll".

Anytime you see someone only being hunted and slaughtered non-stop in a film you will instinctively root for the victims

Sort of like your Viking ancestors did to Britain's monks....who were unarmed and defenseless ?

I also feel they injected feminism in the film as the female warrior roles were downright ridiculous. So the British needed women in order to fight the Romans

Uhh.....Celtic women were warriors.

Please read about Boudica.

The Romans were a patriarchal Empire....but the Celts used both male and female warriors.

If you want extreme, non-stop killing and violence in close up this is the film for you.

History is filled with "non-stop killing and violence". Nations were forged and founded on this....how do you think the Roman Empire was built ? With sweet talk and diplomacy ?

Thousands were brutally crucified and made an example of for daring to challenge the Empire.

History is bloody, its not always pretty....you cannot shy away from this unfortunate fact.

You're one to criticize violence, as your Viking ancestors indulged in it.

Go play with your dolls and make up....since you cannot accept history like a true warrior can........Miss Expert Historian